Skip to main content

About your Search

20120901
20120930
STATION
CSPAN2 13
COM 8
CSPAN 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
KQED (PBS) 2
MSNBC 2
MSNBCW 2
WETA 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
FBC 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 56
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 56 (some duplicates have been removed)
intrigued because clarence thomas was one of those classmates and i had not read much about the interaction between justice thomas and father brooks. so that just got me intrigued. i'm a business journalist. it was not a classic story but i am on a centrist in leadership and i'm always interested in mentoring. and it took quite a while to get justice thomas to speak with me i think in part because he didn't necessarily trust the agenda that i had, which was they would like in fact to talk about 1968, 69, 70 those years and what amazed me was when i did go in to see him, the depth of passion that he had for holy cross. the feelings and emotions he had about father brooks. i'm not sure who was at his presentation last week when he got his honorary degree but that came up again. when you hear what he feels about holy cross versus what he said about his experiences at yale their subfor pound difference in one of the big differences was his classmates and it was the way he felt treated at the college and certainly the way he felt treated by father brooks. so i basically just set out to do an art
, it relates to the larger story, where justices like anthony scalia and clarence thomas, they call themselves texture list, they believe in the letter of the law and they may say if the oath is not executed exactly right, there might be some defect with it, and david barohn suggested to david craig the first white house counsel, maybe you ought to redo it, and by 7:30 that night, john roberts had come back and he did come to the white house and they re-did it flawlessly. >> rose: the story is in part that you write in this book, the obama white house and the supreme court, is barack obama and john roberts. >> it is indeed, seven teeth chief justice, 44th president, in some respects have a lot in common, both came of age in the chicago area, both products of hear extraordinary law school and the hear extraordinary law review, but both of them -- and both of them real students of the constitution. but that is where the similarities end, because roberts coming from his very conservative background, very stable background, is a true conservative, and he believes that the constitution needs to cha
and says i am a judicial activist and is trying to disrupt the united states. clarence thomas does wake up and say that. [laughter] i don't mean that in a critical way. clarence thomas lily has a very different attitude towards president than any of the other justices. justice story has senate. thomas doesn't really believe in the rule of presidents. he thinks that these decisions are wrong and we ought to overturn the mall. and that is a very different attitude than any of the other justices. roberts has an image of himself i'm going to call myself an umpire but i'm really like the commissioner of baseball. but i think he's acting more like a commissioner of baseball. >> what are some of theeasons that you see as explaining the extremes. at the supreme court level at congress, etc.? >> wow, that is a really great question. that is sort of as much political science at something else. a big political factor, i don't want to sound too nerdy about this, but the rise of computer aids for districts are, the members of congress, state legislatures have created congressional seats in the house of
be surprising that they might say? >> how influential clarence thomas is. >> rose: that's exactly what i thought. what would they say? >> they would say clarence thomas is someone who set his goal as a justice to bring ideas to the court that no one else would and to have the patience and the determination overtime to see those ideas develop a majory, two examples, gun conol, u know, he is -- he in the nineties brought the idea, he wrote it in a concurring opinion, that second amendment gives individuals a right to keep and bearing arms, a theory of the first amendment that -- of the second amendment that had been rejected by judges for decades. he was the one who brought that and -- to the court, ultimately vindicated in the heller case which justice scalia wrote. citizens united draws on ideas that clarence thomas brought to the supreme court. the original list, whatever you think about them .. they have ideas that they have pushed in the public, in the academy, in court, and liberals have not been as successful, and i think the irony as i point out there is they are pushing the idea the const
deserved. >> stephen: well thank you very much-- on behalf of justice kennedy. (laughter) has clarence thomas spoken in this past year? >> not for six and a half years. >> stephen: really? has anyone held a mirror under his nose to see-- (laughter). like if it falls-- >> he's very much alive. he talks outside of court but not in court. >> stephen: we're very close to the first monday in october right now. >> we are. >> stephen: what are we looking at-- what are the cases? will the court rule that we can not show pictures of princess kate's boobs? (laughter) >> that's in the french courts, not the u.s. courts so i don't think so. i think the big case about affirmative action and citizens united. your big case. >> stephen: my favorite case! established super pacs. >> but i think they are going to go farther. >> stephen: go farther? what is it i can't do legally now? i run a cock fighting ring out of an orphanage. (laughter) is that not legal yet because i should talk to a lawyer. >> they are going to, i think, eventually, maybe not this year, allow direct contributions to campaigns unlim
precedent. discusses his book with supreme court justice clarence thomas at the national archives here in washington. this is about power and 20 minutes. >> could evening. it's a pleasure to welcome you to the national archive. a special welcome to our friends at c-span and the other media outlets to are with us tonight. special guest in the audience today that i want to single out for special welcome, senator mike lee who is a good friend of the national archives. the future supreme court justice , he was at the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. welcome. on monday the constitution of the u.s. states turned 225. tonight's program is one of several that the national archives is presenting this month in celebration of the founding document signed in philadelphia on september 17th 1787. tonight we're honored to welcome to distinguished guests to explore the past, present and future of the united states constitution. our partners for tonight's program in honor of the constitution are the federalist society and the constitutional accountable lee center. thanks for the opportunity
and principles we live by." the honorable clarence thomas has served as chief justice for nearly 21 years. he received his degree from the college of the holy cross and and it then j.c. from yale law school. and attorney 1977 through '79 and legislative assistant to senator danforth through 1981. then he served as assistant secretary of civil-rights in the department of education. then he became a judge of the u.s. court of appeals in 1990. president bush nominated him as the associate justice and he took his seat october 23rd, 1991. please welcome justice thomas and professor amar to this stage. [applause] >> thank you ladies and gentlemen, for that to gracious for rum. and to the national archives and staff for making this event possible. also to the federalist society and constitution accountabilities center and also justice for being with us today marking the 225th anniversary of our constitution and i would like to start the conversation with the words words, we the people. and apply to that phrase means to you and how would changes over time thanks to amendments. who are we? when did we
't know about clarence thomas -- [laughter] because, as you know, clarence thomas hasn't spoken much, if at all, in fact, not at all, so it is possible mathematically speaking that he is infinitely funny, that he is always funny no matter what he says. [laughter] he could conceivably be the patch adams of the supreme court. [laughter] i just got a razz right there, thanks very much. i felt it, i heard it. >> but justice -- in your book, let's talk further about the book. justice scalia goes on to say that this court is already rewriting the constitution. did he already render your book obsolete? >> oh, he probably did. pretty hilariously, there's a guy named rexford tugwell who has a great name i couldn't possibly make up. he has rewritten the constitution because famously, and we can talk about this in the second amendment, he actually did the work of rewriting the actual amendment to say what he thought it meant using the language and flipping it around. but we can get into that. but, and he's not alone in doing that either. but there is another rewrite to the constitution. he did,
group by a poor, and i'm talking about you, rush limbaugh. and you, clarence thomas and you, h. l. mencken, talking about your disgusting drug habit, you smoke these, cigars. these can stink up a whole neighborhood. i think there should be laws that prevent people from smoking bees in public places. but rocky patel says i being unreasonable. he owns one of the biggest american cigar companies. so look, you must agree that to many of us the stink. this is awful. it's reasonable to ban it in some places. >> it is an art form, a culture that is transcending over generations. once you actually learned how to enjoy a cigar is like enjoying a great bottle of wine in the grid above coffee. really most cigar smokers are very respectful of people, and they try not to infringe on anybody's rights, but they want the right and privilege to enjoy a cigar. this is a legal product, an art form, it's an wonderful, and something you need. we can enjoy them in cigar lounges, i can enjoy them in florida on the beach is fun not sitting next to anybody, not infringing on their rights. a great concept.
. you take a whole line of people from chris cox of the fcc to clarence thomas of the u.s. supreme court and ronald reagan. >> ron paul, rand paul, who they say is not named after ryan rand. they just picked rand out of a hat. likely. what is the actual connection between alan greenspan and ayn rand. >> he was a member of her collective, the small group of people who coalesced around her in the 1950s. he was a high member of her others. he was number three in her rank of accolades. she was one of the chief apostles. he was like the apostle paul of the ayn rand movement. number two and number three up through the 1960s. >> cenk: that's amazing. >> he wrote essays for her books, and her newsletter. >> cenk: i didn't know that. and for those who don't know, alan greenspan was head of the federal reserve board. during the economic collapse, and all leading up to it, he said we don't need to regulate. we don't need to regulate the market. and it turns out he was wrong. after the collapse he said, i was wrong. it turns out we need to regulate the market. who said not to regulate the market, ay
its life to get stoned and ebriateb. barak obama, used marijuana, clarence thomas said he used it once or twice. clinton didn't inhale. newt gingrich says he did. and on and on. so this is another effort, carlson, to convince americans that marijuana is just a good thing and all these prohibitions are terrible. let's get everybody high and we'd all be better off. you say? >> it's ridiculous, number one. you know how i feel about this because i believe that marijuana use leads to harder drug use. this whole lobby be effort is to try examine show the american people and the members of congress that, look, even if you smoke pot, you can become president of the united states. >> bill: you smoke it every day, you're not going to be able to do that. >> a big difference. >> the bottom line here is that they're talking about people who tried it and -- >> bill: some of them used it a lot. >> some used it regularly. if they did, their brains would be fried. we've been through this before. >> bill: do you really believe that? >> because marijuana today is far more dangerous than it was 20, 30 yea
down and called clarence thomas demonic and said gay republican were after mitt's kids and said mitt would kill us out. fake outrage is trite. >> dana: she pretended she didn't know your name. who was it? greg gutfeld. >> greg: i know, we have been dating throughout the '80s. this hurt me. >> eric: whoopi, take it. >> bob: i would let her take -- >> greg: i would let her take me an enjoy every minute of it. >> kimberly: wow. this is very bizarre. >> greg: don't judge. >> kimberly: okay. i'll do a nice thing to honor andy williams who passed away at 84 from bladder cancer. one of my favorite things was president ronald reagan called him a national treasure. somebody that everybody loved to watch, great performer. he didn't have the word "retire" in him. he will be missed. >> greg: bob? >> bob: well, this is dedicated to dana and eric. the new jersey state legislature has a bill pending that puts seat belts on cats and dogs. cats and dogs. if you don't have a seat belt on cat and dog, $20 fine and charge with cruelty against animals. i can't think of anything more ridiculous in my life
at the national archives last week with clarence thomas. he proclaimed -- he proclaimed that he believed in an unwritten constitution. that he thought that there -- all of our rights -- >> eliot: he could talk. he never says anything from the bench. >> he was so gregarious and forward-leaning when he's assured that it's not a gotcha game, that people aren't out to stab him in the back. he was absolutely into it and into the idea that the declaration of independence talks about fundamental rights, unalienable rights. he's a believer in them. he even said that before the first amendment was adopted which talked about freedom of speech, there was broad freedom of speech in the actual practice of adopting the constitution. so he's willing to look beyond the text. >> eliot: that's interesting because in most of his writings, he's a rather originalist. i want to come back to a more recent decision. healthcare decision. the fulcrum of politics at least for the month preceding it. did chief justice roberts do harm to our understan
nomination of clarence thomas. the committee instead voted to send judge thomas' nomination without a recommendation to the full senate. thomas of course was confirmed nearly three weeks later by one of the narrowest margins ever in history. 52-48. >>> former republican primary rival newt gingrich delivered, shall we say, one of his tough assessments of mitt romney's messaging and campaign strategy on wednesday. here's newt. >> the romney campaign is yet to find a way of explaining itself and laying out in clear, crisp way the difference between romney and obama and i think that frankly is a problem. they have this overmethodical model where they go out and say the same thing. >> joining me now for my panel, the former communications directs director for harry reid and also my current colleague at the white house, nbc's mike viqueira and republican ad maker, brad todd is in the studio box. mr. todd, since i don't get to say mr. todd very often unless i'm talking to myself, we're not related but people ask us that all the time. assess newt's assessment. is he right? >> the fantasy is
brooks, and i was intrigued. i was intrigued because clarence thomas was one of those classmates, and i haven't read much about the interaction between justice thomas and father brooks. so, that got me in trade. i business journalist. it wasn't a classic business story but i always interested in the leadership and i'm always interested in mentoring. it took awhile to get justice thomas to speak to me because i think in part he didn't trust the agenda that i had which is that i would like in fact to talk about 1968, '69, '70 and what amazed me is when i did going to see him, the depth of passion that he had for the holy cross. the feelings and emotions that he had. i'm not sure who was at his presentation last week when he got his artery degree. but that came up again. when you contrast how she feels about holy cross verses what he said about his experience at yale, there's a profound difference coming and i think one of the big differences was his classmates, and was the way that he felt treated at the college and certainly the way that he felt cheated by father brooks so i basically se
, opera, from virginia. i'm sure rick scott. they've opened up the supreme court justices and clarence thomas, alito, they've all been there. so their meeting these are but sheets and this one, just about a month or so ago they raise $109 in one weekend to defeat barack obama this year, president. so think about that. if you look at the super pacs for romney and santorum and ron paul and newt gingrich up until super tuesday they have spent a total for all other candidates of $53 million. and in that one weekend they raise $100 million. so they are huge. they will say and they will do anything. of course, it's a lot easier for the now since citizens united because you can not erase under corporate -- unlimited corporate money but you -- but they also couldn't do it without the assistance of the nation's media and that's what drives me crazy. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. you are watching 48 hours of nonfiction authors and books on c-span2's booktv. >> i have been writing history books for 30 years, and one of the things that i've done throughout every si
opposed to it is clarence thomas. so, there's plenty of reason to think that the supreme court would be hugely in favor of an act that's pending in congress called the disclose act, that would compel people to stand up and identify themselves when they spend money on political advertising. >> i thought the article was important in the sense it cut against this notion that is out there of i partisan supreme court on the issues when in fact, things many people don't agree with, like the treatment of corporations as persons for legal purposes, is something many of the justices agree on, not along party lines and likewise the notion of disclosure. great point. i want to put you on -- >> thank you. did you want to say something? >> the supreme court, in the decision, they didn't seem to understand the reality of politics the way it's practiced. they seem to think that, it says in the majority decision, that in fact, all spending would be disclosed and everybody would know and they would know shareholders would know if companies were pouring money into campaigns in practice, that has turne
by. the honorable clarence thomas has served as justice of the supreme court of the united states for nearly 21 years. he attended conception seminary received an a.b. from the college of the holy cross and a jd from yellow school. he served as an assistant attorney general from 1974 to 1977 an attorney with the mephisto company from 77 to 79. for 1991 to 82 he served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the department of education and is chairman of the equal opportunity commission in 1982 to 1990. became a judge of the u.s. court of appeals from district of columbia circuit in 1990. president bush nominated him as an associate justice of the supreme court and took a seat on october 23rd, in 1891. duties and gentlemen, please welcome justice thomas and professor amar to this stage. [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentleman for that warm welcome. thank you for the national archives and the staff for making this event possible. thanks to the federalist society and the accountability center and thank you, justice thomas for being with us today as we mark the 225th birthday
justices. clarence thomas, alito. they have all been there. these meetings. and this one, where the book came out. just about a month or so ago. they raised $100 million in one week into the fee barack obama this year for president. think about that. if you look at the super packs for romney and santorum and ron paul and newt gingrich up and tell super tuesday, they had spent a total for all of $53 million. and in that one weekend they raised 100 billion. so they are huge. there were out there, and they will stay in they will do anything. of course, it is a lot easier for them out since citizens united because you're not only raising the limit corporate money to be a renter poor which corporations are paying its bills. they have also not been able to do without the assistance of the nation's media. .. >> he is one of the most exciting and interesting scientists. he grew up in london and studied in cambridge, england. and he became a computer scientist and then developed the idea that we might live essentially forever. or at least a thousand years, 10,000 years, some modest time span like
clarence thomas is in the u.s. senate, it would not meet a bit of difference in terms of the kind of progress you're talking about. in fact, it would be an impediment. if we attend black folks who sold their souls to wall street or tim brown who sold to wall street, it wouldn't make any difference in terms of the concern about poverty. the economic injustice is not just a question of dealing with this legacy of white supremacy that is very much a part of this country. two things very quickly. one, not the best system. campaigning for barack obama to be president. we understand everything. we understand that imperative and how much worse the company got elected. we understand of republican obstructionism. we are sent to hear every bit of this. but here's when you raise the african-american issue as we are african-americans. user was done in the black community. when i was talking about the issue of accountability for this president when he was running, you know, and risk becoming in our community, black folks more often said shut up, let the get elected. suture black behind down an
clarence thomas. condoleezza rice, etc. i take umbrage with the hate. they have short memories. george bush was in office and video - they wanted to try him for war crimes. hate is a two-way street. caller: i think he is done a balanced job this morning. if politics was the main and horrible, what would you write about? that's all you do. use politics as a way to enflame the population. you said he needed to back out because he lost michigan because of a statement he made even though you said, that is not what the man to. why don't you publish that? eant.t is not what you ma host: i want to ask you about the role of the campaign committees, the ads that are put out by the campaigns. caller: they can't parse through? it is just rumor and speculation and piling on. it is crazy. why don't you just go back to reporting? we want to hear the truth. guest: c-span1, spc-span2 -- please send links to your friends. reporting has been done on that. i read that somewhere. look, the application happened because the political campaigns want to amplify. i don't know why mr. romney is not campaigning as mu
in everything, the citizens united thing, the supreme court, not aware that clarence thomas has a financial conflict of interest, due to his wife's role as the ceo of liberty central, and that the koch brothers -- their ancestry comes from hitler -- not from hitler, but from nazi germany. their grandparents were part of nazi germany, connected to concentration camps. they have done a lot of polluting -- host: your question for art guest? caller: why are the people who are the biggest threat to democracy but emphasized? -- not emphasized? why aren't the koch brothers exposed more? host: professor farnsworth, if you wish. guest: i think the color bang's concerns connect -- caller's concerns speak to the need for greater transparency in our system. when you talk about a group that is citizens for a better tomorrow, or citizens for a good vision for the future, who is behind that? where is their money coming from? what is the background of those donors? many of these things don't have to be disclosed in terms of super pacs in the wake of the citizens united many organizations offered innocuous-
to justice clarence thomas, carrie severino. that may help her eye she speaks on writes on legal issues as the chief counsel and policy director of the judicial crisis network, an organization of advocates in favor of judicial nominees with conservative values. kerry. >> thank you so much. i do have my degree linguistics because i've been cast documents or categories of cases, not have actual krantz. i feel both are talked talk about quite predilection of cases to give you a sense of the field. one is an same-sex marriage cases in the proposition a cave than the others in the voting rights cases. both are issues the court is likely to take on, but we don't yet know exactly how that's going to play up because they have a granted these cases yet. they also all share interesting aspects of angles on the relationship between the state and federal government. so first, to turn to the defense of marriage act and proposition made as a talk about the cases first and probably cases it little less likely to provide a different angle. first, history on dome passed in 1996 and has two main section
in the mold of scalia and clarence thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose. here is the difference. he trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. i trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. supreme court question in a moment, but make sure i486. if you're elected president, not through appointments to the fda, you won't support legislation to overturn this? >> i don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. the fda has made its decision. >> that means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the fda women. if i heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. and if i heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his fda appointee to review the decision. now that sounds to me a little bit different. i just think that we ought support the decision. >> i said i would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug. >> on the supreme court question. should a voter assume -- you're p
that was there. steven briar and antonin scalia and clarence thomas and anthony kennedy. this morning's homily called for the spirit of god to place his blessing on the new year. speaking of the supreme court, a gallup poll shows americans are split in confidence in the judicial branch. when asked, 53% said they have a fair amount of trust. 27% said not very much. only 14% gave their full trust. when it comes to how well the supreme court is doing its job, 49% approve and 40% disapprove. it is likely the last time high-profile cases like health care weighed heavily on the public's view of the court. that ruling on the president's law castigated the nation. the new term could have another round of blockbuster cases, from gay marriage to race-based college entrance policies. we have a current partner of and one of our favorite court watchers, thank you so much for coming in today. >> thanks, shannon. >> shannon: let's start with day 1, tomorrow, involving shell oil company and allegations of human rights abuses in nigeria. >> absolutely. this is an interesting case. have you a real problem. you
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 56 (some duplicates have been removed)